ANALYSIS DEFECT CIS 7 & QLASSIC ACEPTABLE SCORE (2015 … · 2020. 12. 22. · using QLASSIC...
Transcript of ANALYSIS DEFECT CIS 7 & QLASSIC ACEPTABLE SCORE (2015 … · 2020. 12. 22. · using QLASSIC...
ANALYSIS DEFECT CIS 7 & QLASSIC
ACEPTABLE SCORE (2015–2018)
CIDB TECHNICAL REPORT PUBLICATION NO: 206
Copyright
Published in 2020 by
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MALAYSIA (CIDB)
Quality Division
Technology Development Sector
Lembaga Pembangunan Industri Pembinaan Malaysia (CIDB)
Level 23, Sunway Putra Tower
No. 100, Jalan Putra,
50350 Kuala Lumpur
MALAYSIA
Copyright © 2020 by Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB)
ISBN 978-967-0997-84-1
All Right Reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced, stored and transmitted in any form, or by any
means without prior written permission from CIDB Malaysia.
i
PREFACE
To develop and drive a merit-based culture in the construction industry, it is important to ensure that
the quality of contractors and construction works meet a minimum standard. The quality assessment
namely Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC) is a system or method to ensure and
evaluate the workmanship quality of a building construction work based on Construction Industry
Standard (CIS 7:2014). QLASSIC enables the quality of workmanship between construction projects
to be objectively compared through a scoring system. Hence, this system assesses contractor
workmanship and broader quality assurance for both contractors and overall construction projects.
This document entitle “Analysis Defect CIS 7 & QLASSIC Acceptable Score (2015 – 2018)”
produced by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) will be used as the primary
reference and baseline QLASSIC data report for the construction industry as facts and figures to
evaluate and monitor the trend of the quality construction projects. This report aimed to analysed defect
data based on QLASSIC assessment data from year 2015 to 2018 and to recommend Acceptable Score
to be used as minimum scoring in quality assessment.
The CIDB wish to express their gratitude and appreciation to the construction industry who
participated in QLASSIC Certification Scheme thus providing platform to assess and conduct this
project. This report hopefully can increase the use and adoption of the system thus enhance the overall
quality improvement in construction projects that benefit to the end user.
Quality Division,
Technology Development Sector,
Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB)
ii
EDITORIAL
This project was funded by the Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia (CIDB) and
executed by the Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (CREAM). We would like to thank the
following members for their contribution and support.
CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MALAYSIA (CREAM)
Dato’ Ir Rohaizi Mohd. Jusoh
Mr. Syed Hazni Abd. Gani
Mrs. Maria Zura Mohd Zain
Dr. Natasha Dzulkalnine
Mr. Mohammad Darsuki Lahat
Mrs. Afiqah Che Abu Bakar
Mr. Ahmad Zulfadhli Abu Hasan
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MALAYSIA (CIDB)
Datuk Ir. Elias Ismail
Tn Hj Razuki bin Ibrahim
Mr. Mohammad Faizal Abdul Hamid
Mrs. Nabila Syazwani Kamaludin
Mr. Mohamad Fazirul Izat Mohamad Termizi
Mr. Anuar Mat Daud
Mrs. Noorhafiza Hanipah
SECRETARIAT CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MALAYSIA (CREAM)
Mrs. Ihfasuziella Ibrahim
Mr. Mohd Nazrol Ibrahim
Mr. Mohd Norazman Mohd Said
Mr. Muhammad Helmyyuzi Mohd Hamid
Mr. Mohd Azrol Azmi
Ms. Normaisarah Burhanuddin
Mr. Muhammad Mustaqim Mohtar
Ms. Nurulhuda Mat Kilau
Tg. Mohd Hafizi Raja Ahmad
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Construction industry is one of the industries that commonly known contributes significantly to
negative impact in terms of material, workmanship and quality of building. To overcome this issue,
the Malaysian Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) has implemented a quality
assessment system using a point monitoring checklist called Quality Assessment System in
Construction (QLASSIC). QLASSIC is an effective tool to provide a criterion quality workmanship
for contractors, hence allowing the building occupier getting the most quality building product from
the developers. This initiative is aligned with the national quality and safety aspiration as stated under
the Construction Industry Transformation Programme (CITP) 2016-2020.
This study outlined two (2) main objectives which are to analyse the defect group of CIS 7 and to set
up the acceptable score for QLASSIC scoring. This study also analyses the number of assessments by
state and category from year 2015 until 2018. Conclusion and recommendation were drawn at the end
of the study.
The findings show that the main defect group contributed to the defects is Finishing and Floor. Other
defect groups which are also contributed to the defects are Material & Damages, Drain, External Wall
and Joints & Gaps. The defect group of Finishing involved five (5) elements which are Floor, Internal
Wall, Ceiling, External Wall and Roof while for the defect group Floor involved four (4) elements
which are Playground, Court, Link-way / Shelter and Car Park / Car Porch.
Element Defect Group (Highest)
2015 2016 2017 2018
Floor Finishing Finishing Finishing Jointing
Internal Wall Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
Ceiling Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
Door Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Window Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Internal Fixtures Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Functionality Material & Damages
Roof Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
External Wall Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
Apron & Perimeter Drain
Drain Drain Drain Drain
Car Park / Car Porch
Basic M&E Fittings
- Floor Floor
iv
Element Defect Group (Highest)
2015 2016 2017 2018
Link-way / Shelter Floor Floor Floor Floor
External Drain Drain Drain Drain Drain
Roadwork & Car Park on the ground
Road Markings Road Surface Road Surface Kerbs
Footpath & Turfing Footpath 1 Footpath 1 Footpath 1 Footpath 1
Playground Floor Floor Floor Floor
Court Floor 2 Floor 1 Floor 2 Signages
Fencing & Gate Fence 1 Fence 1 Fence 1 Fence 1
Swimming Pool Overflow Drain Pool deck
Overflow Drain Pool deck
Fixtures
Electrical Substation
External Wall External Wall External Wall External Wall
Guard House Roof - - External Wall
Bin Centre External Wall - - External Wall
Basic M&E Fittings Joints & Gaps Joints & Gaps Joints & Gaps Joints & Gaps
The analysis of acceptable for QLASSIC scoring shows the mean score of QLASSIC is 70 score and
above for all years from 2015 until 2018. Majority of the highest mean score are from Category A
followed by Category B. The overall mean score is 73 score. Thus, the baseline of the QLASSIC score
shall be fall between 70 – 75 to increase the implementation of QLASSIC to the Malaysian
construction industry.
Year Category Mean Score Total Mean Score
2015
A 74
73 B 70
C 73
D 81
2016
A 72
72 B 72
C 71
D 65
2017
A 72
72 B 74
C 72
D 77
2018
A 75
74 B 74
C 69
D 75
v
The number of assessments by state and category from year 2015 until 2018 shows that Selangor
recorded the highest number of assessments followed by Johor. Kelantan shows the least number of
assessments. Category A and Category B is the most assessed category and 2017 recoded the highest
number of assessments followed by 2016.
From the findings, it is indicated that the defect group that should be tackle of are Finishing and Floor.
The contractor should increase the workmanship of the finishing especially for the elements Floor,
Internal Wall, Ceiling, External Wall and Roof. Besides that, the contractor shall recheck and validated
the quality of the material especially for Floor element.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
2015 2016 2017 2018
Trend of Assessment by State and Category from 2015 to 2018
SB PR PJ PP KN ML TG KD PH SR SL JH NS WP
vi
CONTENTS
PREFACE .......................................................................................................................................... i
EDITORIAL ....................................................................................................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION ................................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 What is QLASSIC? .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of QLASSIC .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Development of QLASSIC ................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 QLASSIC in the Construction Industry Transformation Programme (CITP) ....................................... 4 1.5 Importance of QLASSIC in the undertake Malaysian Construction Industry ....................................... 5 1.6 Objective of the Study .......................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2: CURRENT STATUS OF QLASSIC ACHIEVEMENT ................................................... 6
2.1. QLASSIC Industry Achievement in 2018............................................................................................. 6 2.2. QLASSIC Excellence Award.............................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 12
3.1. Data Collection Method ..................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 13
4.1. Analysis on Defect Group .................................................................................................................. 13 4.2. Analysis on QLASSIC Scoring .......................................................................................................... 58 4.3. The Number of Assessments by State and Category between 2015 and 2018 ............................... 72
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 74
5.1. Conclusion and Recommendation on the Defect Group ................................................................... 74 5.2. Conclusion and Recommendation on QLASSIC Scoring Benchmarks ............................................ 74
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................... 76
Appendix 1: QLASSIC Excellence Awards 2019 ......................................................................................... 76
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
CASC Construction Assessment Centre
CIDB Construction Industry Development Board
CIS Construction Industry Standard
CITP Construction Industry Transformation Programme
CREAM Construction Research Institute of Malaysia
KPI Key Performance Indicator
PPR People’s Housing Program
M&E Mechanical and Electrical
QAS Quality Assessment System
QLASSIC Quality Assessment System in Construction
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 What is QLASSIC?
Quality in the construction industry plays a significant role in guaranteeing the personal satisfaction
of the occupants. As such, quality within the construction industry should be continuously improved
thereby contributing to a high rate of growth and development in the industry and the Malaysian
economy. Therefore, it is crucial to continuously build the quality management system or quality
assessment system within the building and construction industry to improve the quality of work. In
Malaysia, the Quality Assessment System (QAS) in the construction industry, is called (QLASSIC),
developed by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB).
According to the CIDB, QLASSIC is a system or method used to measure and assess the quality of
construction work based on the Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7:2014), similar to guidelines
used for construction projects in achieving quality outcomes. Principally, the motivation behind
QLASSIC is to improve the quality of the construction industry in Malaysia. QLASSIC was first
introduced into Malaysia in 2006 to enable the quality of workmanship between construction project
to be objectively compared through a scoring system. The categories of buildings that can be accessed
using QLASSIC include landed housing, stratified housing, building for public use such as offices and
schools, in addition to distinctive buildings such as hospitals and airports, etc.
QLASSIC establishes the standard on the quality of workmanship for different construction
components of building construction work. Marks are awarded based on the level of compliance
against the standard (CIS 7:2014) that the workmanship conforms to, which are summarised to
compute the QLASSIC Score (%) for the construction work. Given it is impractical to assess all
components in a construction project, the assessment via QLASSIC utilises a sampling method for this
task. Before conducting the assessment, a delegate from the Construction Assessment Centre (CASC),
a unit under Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (CREAM) that manages the QLASSIC
assessment activities, will decide upon the nature and size of the components or areas (i.e. samples) to
be assessed. The samples must reflect the activities and work that has been undertaken throughout the
project chosen from the drawings and plans of the applicable construction project. All areas in the
construction project must be accessible for the assessment.
2
1.2 Scope of QLASSIC
Four principal components are assessed for building construction. The outline for each component is
shown in Table 1. A QLASSIC assessment will normally be undertaken following completion of
building construction work or beforehand during the completion of the project.
Table 1.1: Summary of building construction components assessed via QLASSIC
Component Details
1. Structural works* The structural integrity of the building is of great importance since
the cost of any failure and repairs is significant. The assessment of
structural works comprises of:
i. Site inspection of reinforced concrete, structural steel, and
prestressed concrete structures during construction.
ii. Test results of the compressive strength of concrete and
tensile strength of steel reinforcement.
iii. Non-destructive testing of the uniformity and cover of
hardened concrete.
2. Architectural works Architectural works mainly deal with finishes. This is when the
quality and standard of workmanship are most visible.
Architectural works comprise of:
1. Floors
2. Internal walls
3. Ceilings
4. Doors
5. Windows
6. Fixtures
7. External walls
8. Aprons
9. Perimeter drains
10. Structure car parks
11. Car porches.
3. Mechanical and
Electrical (M&E) works
The quality of M&E works is most important given its increasingly
high-cost proportion to the project and impact on the performance
of a building. The assessment addresses:
1. Electrical works*
2. Air-conditioning and mechanical* ventilation works
(ACMV)*
3. Fire protection works*
4. Sanitary and plumbing works*
5. Basic M&E fittings.
4. External works External works address the general external work elements in
building construction, such as:
1. Link-way/shelter
2. External Drain
3. Roadwork
4. Car park on the ground
5. Footpath
3
Component Details
6. Turfing
7. Playground
8. Court
9. Gate
10. Fence
11. Swimming Pool
12. Electrical substation
13. Guardhouse
14. Bin centre.
Reference: Construction Industry Standard (CIS7:2014).
*Components that are not covered in the current practice; the score will be pro-rated.
1.3 Development of QLASSIC
QLASSIC was first introduced into Malaysia by the CIDB in 2006 The first standard adopted in the
industry as the Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7:2006) as mentioned earlier. In 2018, the first
revision of the Construction Industry Standard 7 was introduced, referred to as the Construction
Industry Standard (CIS 7:2014) which continues to be used.
The CIS 7:2014 is separated into four principal components. The assessment of the workmanship is
carried out based on the components as established under the standard where points are awarded if the
workmanship complies to the standard. These points are then summarised, giving a total quality (TQ)
score called the QLASSIC Score for the building.
The components assessed include:
a) Structural works
The structural integrity of the building is of utmost importance, given the cost of failure and
repairs will be high. The assessment of structural works comprises:
i) Site inspection of formwork, steel reinforcement, prefabricated or pre-cast
elements, etc. during construction;
ii) Laboratory testing on compressive strength of concrete and tensile strength of
steel reinforcement; and
4
iii) Non-destructive testing of the uniformity and the cover of hardened concrete.
b) Architectural works
Architectural works deal mainly with the finishes, which is where the quality and standards of
workmanship are most visible. Architectural works include floors, internal walls, ceilings,
doors and windows, fixtures and fittings, external walls, roofs, driveways, porches, and aprons.
c) Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) works
The quality of M & E works is important, given its increasingly high-cost proportion to the
project and impact on the performance of a building. Generally, the assessment addresses
electrical works, air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation works (ACMV), fire protection
works, sanitary and plumbing works, lifts, escalators, and other basic M & E fittings.
d) External works
External works cover elements in building construction such as link-ways, shelters, drains, road
works, car parks, footpaths, turfing, playgrounds, gates and fences, swimming pools, hardscapes,
and electrical substation(s). Under the Construction Industry Standard (CIS), the weightage for
structural, architectural, M&E, and external works are allocated in accordance with four
categories of buildings. The weightage system, which is aimed to achieve the objective of the
QLASSIC assessment represents the overall quality of a building. Moreover, it is a compromise
between the cost proportions of four components in various buildings and aesthetic
considerations. The QLASSIC score for a building is computed as the sum of points awarded to
the four components in each category of a building.
1.4 QLASSIC in the Construction Industry Transformation Programme (CITP)
The CITP was launched on 10th September 2015 having four main thrusts that include Quality, Safety
and Professionalism, Environmental Sustainability, Productivity, and Internationalisation. Under
CITP, it proposes the improvement of quality standards by increasing the implementation of quality
assessments via QLASSIC. QLASSIC assesses the workmanship of contractors and broader quality
assurance for building construction, which has led to improvements in the quality of both contractors
5
and overall construction work. Six key performance indicators (KPIs) are established to achieve the
aim of QLASSIC in the Malaysian construction industry. The KPIs are depicted in Table 1.2:
Table 1.2: KPIs for QLASSIC
Year KPI
2018 500 accredited QLASSIC assessors produced.
2019 i. Minimum of one qualified QLASSIC assessor for every G7 contractor undertaking building projects.
ii. Twenty (20) key developers adopted the guideline for a minimum QLASSIC score of 70 in their contractual requirement for a residential project.
2020 I. More than 50% of public building projects completed annually by G7 contractors need to achieve a minimum QLASSIC score of 70.
II. More than 50% of private residential projects having a contract sum exceeding RM 10M completed annually need to achieve a minimum QLASSIC score of 70.
III. Minimum of one Site Supervisory Staff (SSS) for public building projects trained on QLASSIC.
1.5 Importance of QLASSIC in the undertake Malaysian Construction Industry
A study undertaken by the Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (CREAM) in 2018 revealed
that the quality of interior and exterior construction work became one of the main factors related to
residential satisfaction towards the People’s Housing Program (PPR) for housing. The
recommendation made by the researchers (CREAM) suggested that there is a need to establish policy
and regulation to check on the quality of interior and exterior construction to overcome the issue of
quality of the building. Thus, QLASSIC us used to address this issue.
1.6 Objective of the Study
The objectives of the study are two-fold:
i. To analyse the defect group of CIS 7; and
ii. To establish a baseline for an acceptable score for QLASSIC scoring.
6
CHAPTER 2: CURRENT STATUS OF QLASSIC ACHIEVEMENT
The concern related to the quality of workmanship in the construction industry has been one of the
main aspects raised by stakeholders, as mandated under CIDB Act 520. As such, significant efforts
have been progressed under various initiatives to educate the industry on the importance of quality
construction.
2.1. QLASSIC Industry Achievement in 2018
a) QLASSIC Assessment trend from 2015 to 2018
The number of QLASSIC projects between 2015 and 2018 totalled 887, as shown in Figure
2.1, involving Categories A, B, C and D. In 2015, 82 projects had undergone QLASSIC
assessment comprising of 45 projects in Category A, 11 projects in category B, 24 projects in
Category C and two projects in Category D. In 2016, there were 248 projects assessed by
QLASSIC; Category A (136 projects), Category B (47 projects), Category C (63 projects) and
Category D (2 projects). Since 2015, the implementation of QLASSIC in building projects has
incrementally grown each year. Figure 2.1 illustrates that in 2018, the trend was slightly lower
compared to 2017 by around 8.6% with 314 projects, while the number of projects
implemented remained above the annual targeted project projects set at 300 projects per year
(Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.1 Number of QLASSIC Assessments in 2015-2018.
45
136164
12111
47
62
70
24
63
76
45
2
2
1
18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2015 2016 2017 2018
FR
EQ
UE
NC
Y
YEAR
Number of QLASSIC Assessment in 2015-2018 by Category
A B C D
7
Figure 2.2: Number of projects assessed vs targeted projects (2015-2018).
b) Registration for building projects from 2015 to 2018
• 2015: 6% (Registration for 2015: 4500 building projects).
• 2016: 9.8% (Registration for 2016: 2928 building projects).
• 2017: 15% (Registration for 2017: 2280 building projects).
• 2018: 14.5% (Registration for 2018: 2165 building projects).
Figure 2.3: Percentage of QLASSIC Implementations in 2015-2018.
300 300 300 300270
287
341314
2015 2016 2017 2018
Targets Achievements
6.00%
9.80%
15.00% 14.50%
2015 2016 2017 2018
Year of Implementation
Percentage of QLASSIC projects vs total building projects
8
c) Average Scores for QLASSIC from 2015 to 2018
Figure 2.4 shows that the average QLASSIC scores between 2015 and 2018 lingered between
72% and 74% with the lowest score recorded in 2017, and the highest average score was in
2018 at 74%. This indicates that contractors have improved over these years in delivering better
quality workmanship in their projects.
Figure 2.4: Average QLASSIC scores (2015-2018).
d) Statistics for 2018 according to each category (A, B, C and D) for a total of 314
projects
From a total of 314 projects that underwent the QLASSIC assessment, as shown in Figure 2.5,
in 2018, Category A – landed housing represented the largest proportion compared to the
remaining categories at 49.6%, followed by Category B – stratified housing at 27.4%, Category
C – public buildings and category D – special public buildings settled at 16.6% and 6.4%
respectively.
73 73 72
74
2015 2016 2017 2018
Average Scores (%)
9
Figure 2.5: The distribution number of projects assessed in 2018 (by Building Category).
e) Scores obtained for projects assessed in 2018
For 2018, it showed promising statistics, as more than 75% of projects had implemented
QLASSIC at their site, with scores ranging between 60% and 79%. Around 62 from 314
projects obtained scores exceeding 80% while only a minority (2.22%) from the sum of projects
in 2018 scored less than 59% (Figure 2.6).
Figure 2.6: Number of projects for each score range.
Category A, 49.6%
Category B, 27.4%
Category C, 16.6%
Category D, 6.4%
7
245
62
0-59 (%) 60-79 (%) 80-100 (%)
Number of projects
10
g) Regional Classification
As shown in Figure 2.7, the largest contributor relating to the sum projects that had
implemented QLASSIC was from Greater Klang Valley (Selangor and Kuala Lumpur) with
152 projects (48%) from the total sum of projects using the QLASSIC methodology in
Malaysia. The state of Johor was second with 59 projects from a total of 314 projects in 2018.
Accordingly, it is suggested that more campaigns and activities should be undertaken in other
states to increase the adoption of QLASSIC as the level of awareness of QLASSIC is shown
to be more prominent in urban areas.
Figure 2.7: Distribution of QLASSIC Implementation by each state in 2018.
2.2. QLASSIC Excellence Award
A celebration day for QLASSIC high scorers, “QLASSIC Day 2019” was held to recognise developers
and contractors who had achieved high scores and achievements in 2018. The event was officiated by
the Minister of Works, YB Tuan Baru Bian, where he applauded the good work of high scorers and
encouraged the industry to increase the pace to achieve better results in future.
The highest QLASSIC score was for Saujana Duta Phase 2L Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, owned by
the Seremban Two Holding Sdn. Bhd., co-constructed by the contractors, Timbunan Bakti
Construction Sdn. Bhd., and architect, Design Collective Architecture Network Sdn. Bhd.
118
59
3421 19 17 16 14
4 4 4 3 1 0 0
A total of 314 projects assessed
11
The QLASSIC Excellence Awards for assessments undertaken in 2018 were divided to the following
categories:
• Highest Achievement QLASSIC Award 2019.
• High QLASSIC Achievement Award 2019 (Landed Residential Development).
• High QLASSIC Achievement Award 2019 (High Rise Residential Development).
• High QLASSIC Achievement Award 2019 (Non-Residential Development).
• QLASSIC Special Appreciation given to Government Projects 2019.
A complete list of receivers of the awards is listed in Appendix 1: QLASSIC Excellence Awards 2019.
12
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Data Collection Method
The data received from the CIDB represented the secondary data of this study. CREAM
received the file from CIDB for the period between 2015 and 2018 and analysed the results via
Microsoft Excel. The sum of the defect group was also incorporated into MS Excel. The final
output of the results depicted the highest defect group during the QLASSIC assessment stage.
The QLASSIC score benchmarking data received were analysed using MS Excel with the
output representing the total mean score for each category (Categories A, B, C and D) and the
maximum score for benchmarking. The formula for calculating the mean is expressed as
follows:
�̅� = ∑𝑥
𝑁
∑𝑥 = the sum of x
N = number of data
13
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS
4.1. Analysis on Defect Group
A. 2015
Figure 4.1 shows the total number of locations assessed for 2015. The majority of the
assessed locations is represented as the Principal (P), followed by Service (S) and
Circulation ©.
Figure 4.1: Total Number of Assessed Locations (2015).
Figure 4.2 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Floor. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.2% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack &
Damages (95.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is Finishing at 19.8%.
Figure 4.2: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor (2015).
19.8%
99.2%
95.5%
46.9%
22.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor
14
Figure 4.3 shows the percentage of compliance for the defect group, Internal Wall. The
highest percentage of compliance is 92.2% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack
& Damages (88.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 15.6%.
Figure 4.3: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Wall (2015).
Figure 4.4 shows the percentage of compliance for the defect group, Ceiling. The highest
percentage of compliance is 97.0% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by
Hollowness/Delamination (95.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at
19.1%.
Figure 4.4: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Ceiling (2015).
15.6%
92.2%
88.6%
61.3%
22.7%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Wall
19.1%
97.0%
92.5%
95.7%
62.5%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Ceiling
15
Figure 4.5 shows the percentage of compliance for the defect group, Door. The highest
percentage of compliance is 98.9% for Functionality, followed by Alignment & Evenness
(94.4%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages with 24.6%.
Figure 4.5: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door (2015).
Figure 4.6 shows the percentage of compliance for the defect group, Window. The highest
percentage of compliance is 98.3% for Functionality, followed by Alignment & Evenness
(96.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages with 28.9%.
Figure 4.6: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Window (2015).
50.6%
94.4%
24.6%
98.9%
52.2%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Joints & Gaps Alignment &Evenness
Material &Damages
Functionality Accessories Defects
Door
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door
56.8%
96.6%
28.9%
98.3%
76.8%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Joints & Gaps Alignment &Evenness
Material &Damages
Functionality AccessoriesDefects
Window
Percentage of Compliance of Defect Group Window
16
Figure 4.7 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Internal Fixtures. The
highest percentage of compliance is 99.0% for Functionality, followed by Alignment &
Evenness (98.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages with
63.9%.
Figure 4.7: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Fixtures (2015).
Figure 4.8 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roof. The highest
percentage of compliance is 98.1% for Rough/Uneven/Falls, followed by Chokage/Ponding
(95.1%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 40.2%.
Figure 4.8: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof (2015).
65.5%
98.5%
63.9%
99.0%
91.5%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Fixtures
40.2%
98.1%
76.4%
84.1%
95.1%
85.7%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Rough / Uneven / Falls
Cracks & Damages
Joint /Sealant / Alignment
Chokage / Ponding
Construction
Ro
of
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof
17
Figure 4.9 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, External Wall. The highest
percentage of compliance is 89.3% for Jointing, followed by Crack & Damages (86.0%).
The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 37.3%.
Figure 4.9: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Wall (2015).
Figure 4.10 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Apron & Perimeter. The
highest percentage of compliance is 99.4% for Apron 1 & Apron 2 followed by Inspection
Chamber (87.0%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain with 45.1%.
Figure 4.10: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter (2015).
37.3%
72.7%
86.0%
89.3%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Cracks & Damages
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Wall
45.1%
54.3%
99.4%
99.4%
87.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Drain
Drain Cover
Apron 1
Apron 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter
18
Figure 4.11 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Car Park. The highest
percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Fixtures, Ceiling & Floor. The lowest percentage
of compliance is for Basic M&E Fittings with 99.0%.
Figure 4.11: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park (2015).
Figure 4.12 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Link-way/Shelter. The
highest percentage of compliance is 99.2% for Columns, followed by Basic M&E Fittings
(97.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with 14.9%.
Figure 4.12: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Link-way/Shelter (2015).
100.0%
99.5%
100.0%
100.0%
99.0%
98.4 98.6 98.8 99.0 99.2 99.4 99.6 99.8 100.0 100.2
Floor
Columns / Walls
Ceiling
Fixtures
Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park
14.9%
99.2%
95.9%
97.0%
97.8%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Floor
Columns
Ceiling
Fixtures
Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Link-Way/Shelter
19
Figure 4.13 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, External Drain. The
highest percentage of compliance is 92.5% for Drain Cover followed by Drain 2 (90.3%).
The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain 1 with 76.0%.
Figure 4.13: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain (2015).
Figure 4.14 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roadwork & Car Park on
the Ground. The highest percentage of compliance is 99.3% for Road Signs, followed by
Kerbs (95.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Road Markings, with 58.9%.
Figure 4.14: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park (2015).
76.0%
90.3%
86.7%
92.5%
79.1%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Drain 1
Drain 2
Drain Cover 1
Drain Cover 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain
69.1%
58.9%
95.6% 99.3%
87.2%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Road Surface Road Markings Kerbs Road Signs Road Lightings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park on the Ground
20
Figure 4.15 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Footpath & Turfing. The
highest percentage of compliance is 99.6% for Turfing, followed by Fixtures (93.4%). The
lowest percentage of compliance is for Footpath 1, with 81.5%.
Figure 4.15: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Footpath & Turfing (2015).
Figure 4.16 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Playground. The highest
percentage of compliance is 94.7% for Side Drain, followed by Playground Equipment
(93.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor, with 69.8%.
Figure 4.16: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground (2015).
81.5%
86.4%
99.6%
88.3%
93.4%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Footpath 1
Footpath 2
Turfing
Lighting
Fixtures
Foo
tpat
h &
Tu
rfin
g
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Footpath & Turfing
69.8%
93.2% 90.1%94.7%
83.3%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Floor PlaygroundEquipment
Lightings Side Drain Fixtures
Playground
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground
21
Figure 4.17 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Court. The highest
percentage of compliance is 95.0% for Fixtures, followed by Floor 1 (80.5%). The lowest
percentage of compliance is for Signages, with 68.0%.
Figure 4.17: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court (2015).
Figure 4.18 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Fencing & Gate. The
highest percentage of compliance is 99.3% for Basic M&E Fittings, followed by Gate
(97.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Fence 1 with 43.2%.
Figure 4.18: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate (2015).
80.5%
70.0% 68.0%75.0%
95.0%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Floor 1 Floor 2 Signages Basic M&EFittings
Fixtures
Court
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court
43.2%
67.7%
97.5%
99.3%
92.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Fence 1
Fence 2
Gate
Basic M&E Fittings
Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate
22
Figure 4.19 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Swimming Pool. The
highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Ladder & Railing, followed by Basic M&E
Fittings (91.9%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Overflow Drain with 62.9%.
Figure 4.19: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool (2015).
Figure 4.20 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Electrical Substation. The
highest percentage of compliance is 98.1% for Apron & Drain Cover, followed by Window
(97.0%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for External Wall with 34.5%.
Figure 4.20: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation (2015).
62.9%
85.7%
100.0%
91.9%
78.9%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Overflow drain
Pool deck
Ladder & Railing
Basic M&E Fittings
Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool
34.5%
86.4%
97.0%88.5%
98.1%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
External Wall Door Window Fence & Gate Apron & Drain
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation
23
Figure 4.21 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Guard House. The highest
percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Apron & Drain, and Door & Window followed by
Barrier (81.3%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Roof with 15.4%.
Figure 4.21: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Guard House (2015).
Figure 4.22 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Bin Centre. The highest
percentage of compliance is 92.3% for Apron & Drain, followed by Roof (91.7%). The
lowest percentage of compliance is for External Wall with 38.5%.
Figure 4.22: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Bin Centre (2015).
76.5%
100.0%
81.3%
100.0%
15.4%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
External Wall Apron & Drain Barrier Door & Window Roof
Guard House
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Guard House
38.5%
64.3%
92.3%
72.7%
91.7%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
External Wall Floor Apron & Drain Door & Window Roof
Bin Centre
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Bin Centre
24
Figure 4.23 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Basic M&E Fittings.
The highest percentage of compliance is 97.7% for Alignment & Evenness, followed
by Functionality (97.4%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Joints & Gaps,
with 59.8%.
Figure 4.23: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings (2015).
B. 2016
Figure 4.24 shows the total number of assessed locations for 2016. The majority of
assessed locations is represented by Principal, followed by Service and Circulation.
Figure 4.24: Total Number of Assessed Locations (2016).
59.8%
97.7%
60.4%
97.4%
95.6%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings
25
Figure 4.25 shows the percentage of compliance the defect group, Floor. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.0% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack &
Damages (92.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 21.7%.
Figure 4.25: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor (2016).
Figure 4.26 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Wall. The highest
percentage of compliance is 91.6% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack &
Damages (87.1%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 17.3%.
Figure 4.26: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Wall (2016).
21.7%
99.0%
92.5%
53.0%
27.2%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor
17.3%
91.6%87.1%
60.9%
23.5%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Finishing Alignment &Evenness
Crack & Damages Hollowness /Delamination
Jointing
Wall
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Wall
26
Figure 4.27 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Ceiling. The highest
percentage of compliance is 97.7% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by
Roughness/Patchiness (95.9%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing
at 16.6%.
Figure 4.27: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Ceiling (2016).
Figure 4.28 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Door. The highest
percentage of compliance is 98.3% for Functionality, followed by Alignment &
Evenness (92.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages
with 25.9%.
Figure 4.28: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door (2016).
16.6
97.789.5
95.9
68.5
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Finishing Alignment &Evenness
Crack & Damages Roughness /Patchiness
Jointing
Ceiling
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Ceiling
52.0%
92.8%
25.9%
98.3%
48.5%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Joints & Gaps Alignment &Evenness
Material &Damages
Functionality AccessoriesDefects
Door
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door
27
Figure 4.29 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Window. The highest
percentage of compliance is 97.9% for Functionality, followed by Alignment &
Evenness (97.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages
with 23.9%.
Figure 4.29: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Window (2016).
Figure 4.30 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Internal Finishing.
The highest percentage of compliance is 99.0% for Alignment & Evenness, followed
by Functionality (98.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material &
Damages with 64.0%.
Figure 4.30: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Finishing (2016).
61.8%
97.5%
23.9%
97.9%
78.9%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Joints & Gaps Alignment &Evenness
Material &Damages
Functionality AccessoriesDefects
Window
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Window
76.2%
99.0%
64.0%
98.7%
92.4%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Finishing
28
Figure 4.31 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roof. The highest
percentage of compliance is 97.6% for Chokage & Ponding, followed by
Rough/Uneven/Falls (95.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at
37.1%.
Figure 4.31: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof (2016)
Figure 4.32 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, External Finishing.
The highest percentage of compliance is 94.9% for Jointing, followed by Crack &
Damages (90.4%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 16.7%.
Figure 4.32: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Finishing (2016).
37.1%
95.2%86.5%
74.9%
97.6%91.8%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Finishing Rough /Uneven / Falls
Cracks &Damages
Joint /Sealant/ Alignment
Chokage /Ponding
Construction
Roof
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof
16.7%
76.3%
90.4%
94.9%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Cracks & Damages
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Finishing
29
Figure 4.33 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Apron & Perimeter
Drain. The highest percentage of compliance is 98.0% for Apron 1, followed by Apron
2 (97.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain with 25.1%.
Figure 4.33: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter Drain (2016).
Figure 4.34 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Car Park/Car Porch.
All defect groups achieved 100.0% compliance.
Figure 4.34: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park/Car Porch (2016).
Figure 4.35 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Link-way/Shelter.
The highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Basic M&E Fittings, followed by
Fixtures (95.0%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with 41.7%.
25.1%
62.3%
98.0%
97.6%
76.2%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Drain
Drain Cover
Apron 1
Apron 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter Drain
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Columns / Walls
Fixtures
Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park / Car Porch
30
Figure 4.35: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Link-way/Shelter (2016).
Figure 4.36 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, External Drain. The
highest percentage of compliance is 89.7% for Inspection Chamber followed by Drain
2 (87.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain 1 with 50.4%.
Figure 4.36: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain (2016).
Figure 4.37 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roadwork & Car
Park. The highest percentage of compliance is 98.5% for Kerbs, followed by Road
Signs (95.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Road Surface, with 34.6%.
41.7%
85.7%
86.4%
95.0%
100.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Floor
Columns
Ceiling
Fixtures
Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Link-way / Shelter
50.4%
87.7%
85.4%
84.1%
89.7%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Drain 1
Drain 2
Drain Cover 1
Drain Cover 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain
31
Figure 4.37: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park (2016).
Figure 4.38 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Footpath & Turfing.
The highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Fixtures and Lighting, followed
by Turfing (99.1%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Footpath, with 76.7%.
Figure 4.38: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Footpath & Turfing (2016).
Figure 4.39 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Playground. The
highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Playground Equipment and Lightings,
followed by Side Drain (95.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with
73.1%.
34.6%
58.8%
98.5% 95.6%87.8%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Road Surface Road Markings Kerbs Road Signs Road Lightings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park
76.7%
90.3%
99.1%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Footpath 1
Footpath 2
Turfing
Lighting
Fixtures
Foo
tpat
h &
Tu
rfin
g
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Footpath & Turfing
32
Figure 4.39: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground (2016).
Figure 4.40 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Court. The highest
percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Basic M&E Fittings, followed by Floor 2 and
Signages (85.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor 1, with 71.4%.
Figure 4.40: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court (2016).
Figure 4.41 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Fencing & Gate. The
highest percentage of compliance is 97.4% for Fixtures, followed by Basic M&E
Fittings (97.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Fence 1 with 53.0%.
73.1%
100.0% 100.0%95.7% 94.7%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Floor PlaygroundEquipment
Lightings Side Drain Fixtures
Playground
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground
71.4%
85.7% 85.7%
100.0%
75.0%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Floor 1 Floor 2 Signages Basic M&E Fittings Fixtures
Court
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court
33
Figure 4.41: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate (2016).
Figure 4.42 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Swimming Pool. The
highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Ladder & Railing, followed by Fixtures
(91.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Pool deck and Overflow Drain
with 78.6%.
Figure 4.42: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool (2016).
Figure 4.43 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Electrical Substation.
The highest percentage of compliance is 86.7% for Window, followed by Door
(72.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for External Wall with 48.9%.
53.0%
65.5%
88.2%
97.2% 97.4%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Fence 1 Fence 2 Gate Basic M&E Fittings Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate
78.6%
78.6%
100.0%
90.9%
91.7%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Overflow drain
Pool deck
Ladder & Railing
Basic M&E Fittings
Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool
34
Figure 4.43: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation (2016).
Figure 4.44 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Basic M&E Fittings.
The highest percentage of compliance is 96.8% for Alignment & Evenness, followed
by Functionality & Safety (96.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Joints
& Gaps, with 55.1%.
Figure 4.44: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings (2016).
C. 2017
Figure 4.45 shows the total number of assessed locations for 2017. The majority of
assessed locations is represented by Principal, followed by Service and Circulation.
48.9%
72.7%
86.7%
69.0% 70.3%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
External Wall Door Window Fence & Gate Apron & Drain
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation
55.1%
96.8%
64.2%
96.6%
94.5%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality & Safety
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings
35
Figure 4.45: Total Number of Assessed Location (2017).
Figure 4.46 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Floor. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.3% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack &
Damages (95.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 24.9%.
Figure 4.46: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor (2017).
Figure 4.47 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Wall. The highest
percentage of compliance is 93.7% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack &
Damages (90.0%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 30.4%.
24.9%
99.3%
95.7%
57.7%
34.5%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor
36
Figure 4.47: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Wall (2017).
Figure 4.48 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Ceiling. The highest
percentage of compliance is 98.8% for Roughness/Patchiness, followed by Alignment
& Evenness (98.1%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 33.9%.
Figure 4.48: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Ceiling (2017).
Figure 4.49 shows the percentage of compliance for defect, Group Door. The highest
percentage of compliance is 97.5% for Functionality, followed by Alignment &
Evenness (92.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages
with 36.3%.
30.4%
93.7%90.0%
67.8%
33.4%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Finishing Alignment &Evenness
Crack &Damages
Hollowness /Delamination
Jointing
Wall
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Wall
33.9%
98.1% 94.3%98.8%
63.2%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Finishing Alignment &Evenness
Crack &Damages
Roughness /Patchiness
Jointing
Ceiling
Percentage of Defect Group Ceiling
37
Figure 4.49: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door (2017)
Figure 4.50 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Window. The highest
percentage of compliance is 98.2% for Functionality, followed by Alignment &
Evenness (94.0%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages
with 32.0%.
Figure 4.50: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Window (2017).
Figure 4.51 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Internal Fixtures. The
highest percentage of compliance is 97.9% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by
Accessories Defects (93.3%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Functionality
with 66.4%.
63.6%
92.2%
36.3%
97.5%
60.7%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Joints & Gaps Alignment &Evenness
Material &Damages
Functionality AccessoriesDefects
Door
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door
69.8%
94.0%
32.0%
98.2%
83.2%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Joints & Gaps Alignment &Evenness
Material &Damages
Functionality AccessoriesDefects
Window
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Window
38
Figure 4.51: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Fixtures (2017).
Figure 4.52 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roof. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.9% for Chokage/Ponding, followed by
Rough/Uneven/Falls (98.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at
58.9%.
Figure 4.52: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof (2017).
Figure 4.53 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Floor. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.3% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack &
Damages (95.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 24.9%.
75.1%
97.9%
72.9%
66.4%
93.3%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Fixtures
58.9%
98.6%
78.4% 81.9%
99.9%
86.5%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Finishing Rough /Uneven / Falls
Cracks &Damages
Joint /Sealant /Alignment
Chokage /Ponding
Construction
Roof
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof
39
Figure 4.53: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Wall (2017).
Figure 4.54 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Apron & Perimeter
Drain. The highest percentage of compliance is 98.4% for Apron 2, followed by Apron
1 (98.1%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain with 18.1%.
Figure 4.54: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter Drain (2017).
Figure 4.55 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Car Park/Car Porch.
The highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Fixtures and Ceiling, followed by
Basic M&E Fittings (95.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with
28.6%.
30.4%
82.2%
90.6%
97.5%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Cracks & Damages
Jointing
Percebtage of Compliance for Defect Group External Wall
18.1%
61.0%
98.1%
98.4%
87.3%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Drain
Drain Cover
Apron 1
Apron 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter Drain
40
Figure 4.55: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park/Car Porch (2017).
Figure 4.56 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Lin-Way/Shelter.
The highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Fixtures, followed by Basic M&E
Fittings (95.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with 62.5%.
Figure 4.56: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Link-way/Shelter (2017).
Figure 4.57 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, External Drain. The
highest percentage of compliance is 94.8% for Inspection Chamber followed by Drain
Cover 2 (87.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain 1 with 59.9%.
28.6%
85.2%
100.0%
100.0%
95.7%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Floor
Columns / Walls
Ceiling
Fixtures
Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park / Car Porch
62.5%
66.7%
87.1%
100.0%
95.5%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Floor
Columns
Ceiling
Fixtures
Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Link-Way / Shelter
41
Figure 4.57: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain (2017).
Figure 4.58 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roadwork & Car
Park on the Ground. The highest percentage of compliance is 98.3% for Road Signs,
followed by Road Lightings (86.9%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Road
Surface, with 45.2%.
Figure 4.58: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park on the Ground (2017).
Figure 4.59 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Footpath & Turfing.
The highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Lighting, followed by Fixtures
(97.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Footpath 1, with 72.4%.
59.9%
85.9%
81.4%
87.2%
94.8%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Drain 1
Drain 2
Drain Cover 1
Drain Cover 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain
45.2%
59.1%
79.9%
98.3%
86.9%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Road Surface Road Markings Kerbs Road Signs Road Lightings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park on the Ground
42
Figure 4.59: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Footpath & Turfing (2017).
Figure 4.60 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Playground. The
highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Side Drain, followed by Playground
Equipment and Lightings (97.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor
with 58.1%.
Figure 4.60: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground (2017).
Figure 4.61 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Court. The highest
percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Signages and Basic M&E Fittings. The lowest
percentage of compliance is for Floor 2, with 43.8%.
72.4%
82.5%
87.2%
100.0%
97.7%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Footpath 1
Footpath 2
Turfing
Lighting
Fixtures
Foo
tpat
h &
Tu
rfin
gPercentage of Compliance for Defect Group Footpath & Turfing
58.1%
97.2% 97.2% 100.0%92.6%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Floor PlaygroundEquipment
Lightings Side Drain Fixtures
Playground
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground
43
Figure 4.61: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court (2017).
Figure 4.62 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Fencing & Gate. The
highest percentage of compliance is 92.7% for Fixtures, followed by Basic M&E
Fittings (90.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Fence 1 with 49.7%.
Figure 4.62: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate (2017).
Figure 4.63 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Swimming Pool. The
highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Basic M&E Fittings followed by
Overflow Drain (96.3%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Pool deck with
58.3%.
56.3%
43.8%
100.0% 100.0%91.7%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Floor 1 Floor 2 Signages Basic M&E Fittings Fixtures
Court
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court
49.7%
72.7%
85.7%
90.8%
92.7%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Fence 1
Fence 2
Gate
Basic M&E Fittings
Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate
44
Figure 4.63: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool (2017).
Figure 4.64 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Electrical Substation.
The highest percentage of compliance is 91.4% for Window, followed by Fence & Gate
(78.3%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for External Wall with 37.9%.
Figure 4.64: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation (2017).
Figure 4.65 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Basic M&E Fittings.
The highest percentage of compliance is 98.3% for Alignment & Evenness, followed
by Accessories Defects (95.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Joints &
Gaps, with 68.4%.
96.3%
58.3%
87.5%
100.0%
95.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Overflow drain
Pool deck
Ladder & Railing
Basic M&E Fittings
Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool
37.9%
77.2%
91.4%
78.3% 76.9%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
External Wall Door Window Fence & Gate Apron & Drain
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation
45
Figure 4.65: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings (2017).
D. 2018
Figure 4.66 shows the total number of assessed locations for 2018. The majority of
assessed locations is represented by Principal, followed by Service and Circular.
Figure 4.66: Total Number of Assessed Location (2018).
Figure 4.67 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Floor. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.5% for Alignment & Evenness, followed by Crack &
Damages (96.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Jointing, with 15.1%.
68.4%
98.3%
69.0%
89.6%
95.8%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality & Safety
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings
46
Figure 4.67: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor (2018).
Figure 4.68 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Basic Internal Wall.
The highest percentage of compliance is 92.6% for Alignment & Evenness, followed
by Crack & Damages (88.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing
with 29.0%.
Figure 4.68: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Wall (2018).
Figure 4.69 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Ceiling. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.1% for Hollowness/Delamination, followed by
Alignment & Evenness (98.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing
at 35.9%.
35.1%
99.5%
96.2%
63.0%
15.1%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Floor
29.0%
92.6%
88.5%
67.1%
55.0%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Wall
47
Figure 4.69: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Ceiling (2018).
Figure 4.70 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Door. The highest
percentage of compliance is 98.5% for Functionality, followed by Alignment &
Evenness (95.0%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages
with 36.4%.
Figure 4.70: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door (2018).
Figure 4.71 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Window. The highest
percentage of compliance is 99.0% for Functionality, followed by Alignment &
Evenness (98.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages
with 25.9%.
35.9%
98.2%
92.8%
99.1%
57.6%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Crack & Damages
Hollowness / Delamination
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Ceiling
48.5%
95.0%
36.4%
98.5%
59.2%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Joints & Gaps Alignment &Evenness
Material &Damages
Functionality AccessoriesDefects
Door
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Door
48
Figure 4.71: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Window (2018).
Figure 4.72 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Internal Fixtures. The
highest percentage of compliance is 99.8% for Functionality, followed by Alignment
& Evenness (97.7%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Material & Damages
with 67.2%.
Figure 4.72: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Fixtures (2018).
Figure 4.73 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roof. The highest
percentage of compliance is 93.9% for Chokage/Ponding, followed by Crack &
Damages (93.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 54.0%.
64.0%
98.8%
25.9%
99.0%
72.3%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality
Accessories Defects
Win
do
wPercentage of Compliance for Defect Group Window
85.4%
97.7%
67.2%
99.8%
86.3%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Internal Fixtures
49
Figure 4.73: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof (2018).
Figure 4.74 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Basic External Wall.
The highest percentage of compliance is 97.2% for Alignment & Evenness, followed
by Jointing (93.3%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Finishing at 23.1%.
Figure 4.74: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Wall (2018).
Figure 4.75 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Apron & Perimeter.
The highest percentage of compliance is 94.3% for Inspection Chamber followed by
Drain Cover (89.4%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain with 57.7%.
54.0%
92.2% 93.8%
66.3%
93.9% 93.2%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Finishing Rough / Uneven/ Falls
Cracks &Damages
Joint /Sealant /Alignment
Chokage /Ponding
Construction
Roof
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roof
23.1%
97.2%
86.6%
93.3%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Finishing
Alignment & Evenness
Cracks & Damages
Jointing
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Wall
50
Figure 4.75: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter (2018).
Figure 4.76 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Car Park/Car Porch.
The highest percentage of compliance is 97.3% for Fixtures, followed by Basic M&E
Fittings (93.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with 18.5%.
Figure 4.76: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park/Car Porch (2018).
Figure 4.77 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Link-way/Shelter.
The highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Columns, followed by Basic M&E
Fittings (94.4%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with 63.0%.
57.7%
89.4%
80.7%
85.2%
94.3%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Drain
Drain Cover
Apron 1
Apron 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Apron & Perimeter
18.5%
88.7% 89.9%97.3%
93.8%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Floor Columns / Walls Ceiling Fixtures Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Car Park / Car Porch
51
Figure 4.77: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Lin-way/Shelter (2018).
Figure 4.78 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, External Drain. The
highest percentage of compliance is 97.9% for Inspection Chamber followed by Drain
Cover 2 (92.5%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Drain 1 with 42.6%.
Figure 4.78: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain (2018).
Figure 4.79 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Roadwork & Car
Park on the Ground. The highest percentage of compliance is 97.7% for Road Signs,
followed by Road Lightings (96.4%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for
Kerbs, with 40.8%.
63.0%
100.0%
95.0%
85.0%
94.4%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Floor
Columns
Ceiling
Fixtures
Basic M&E Fittings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Link-way/Shelter
42.6%
50.5%
89.7%
92.5%
97.9%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Drain 1
Drain 2
Drain Cover 1
Drain Cover 2
Inspection Chamber
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group External Drain
52
Figure 4.79: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park (2018).
Figure 4.80 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Footpath & Turfing.
The highest percentage of compliance is 98.9% for Lighting, followed by Footpath 2
(92.3%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Footpath 1, with 85.7%.
Figure 4.80: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Footpath & Turfing (2018).
Figure 4.81 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Playground. Most of
the defect groups achieved high compliance with 100.0% for Playground Equipment,
Lightings, and Fixtures. The lowest percentage of compliance is for Floor with 55.0%.
68.0%
94.5%
40.8%
97.7% 96.4%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Road Surface Road Markings Kerbs Road Signs Road Lightings
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Roadwork & Car Park on the Ground
85.7%
92.3%
89.9%
98.9%
95.4%
75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0
Footpath 1
Footpath 2
Turfing
Lighting
Fixtures
Foo
tpat
h &
Tu
rfin
g
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Foothpath & Turfing
53
Figure 4.81: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground (2018).
Figure 4.82 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Court. Most of the
defect groups achieved high compliance with 100.0% for Floor 1, Basic M&E Fittings
and Fixtures. The lowest percentage of compliance is for Signages, with 50.0%.
Figure 4.82: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court (2018).
Figure 4.83 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Fencing & Gate. The
highest percentage of compliance is 95.8% for Fence 2, followed by Basic M&E
Fittings (95.2%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Fence 1 with 85.2%.
55.0
100.0 100.0
81.8
100.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Floor PlaygroundEquipment
Lightings Side Drain Fixtures
Playground
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Playground
100.0%
66.7%
50.0%
100.0% 100.0%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Floor 1 Floor 2 Signages Basic M&E Fittings Fixtures
Court
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Court
54
Figure 4.83: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate (2018).
Figure 4.84 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Swimming Pool. The
highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Basic M&E Fittings, and Ladder &
Railing followed by Overflow Drain (90.0%). The lowest percentage of compliance is
for Fixtures with 80.0%.
Figure 4.84: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool (2018).
Figure 4.85 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Electrical Substation.
The highest percentage of compliance is 98.0% for Window, followed by Door
(76.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for External Wall with 29.8%.
85.2%
95.8%
89.1%
95.2%
92.5%
78.0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0
Fence 1
Fence 2
Gate
Basic M&E Fittings
Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Fencing & Gate
90.0%
88.9%
100.0%
100.0%
80.0%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Overflow drain
Pool deck
Ladder & Railing
Basic M&E Fittings
Fixtures
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Swimming Pool
55
Figure 4.85: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation (2018).
Figure 4.86 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Guard House. The
highest percentage of compliance is 100.0% for Barrier and Roof, followed by Door &
Window (93.8%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for External Wall with
56.3%.
Figure 4.86: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Guard House (2018)
Figure 4.87 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Bin Centre. The
highest percentage of compliance is 94.6% for Apron & Drain, followed by Roof
(90.6%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for External Wall with 51.2%.
29.8%
76.8%
98.0%
41.3%48.1%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
External Wall Door Window Fence & Gate Apron & Drain
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Electrical Substation
56.3%
80.0%
100.0%93.8%
100.0%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
External Wall Apron & Drain Barrier Door & Window Roof
Guard House
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Guard House
56
Figure 4.87: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Bin Centre (2018).
Figure 4.88 shows the percentage of compliance for defect group, Basic M&E Fittings.
The highest percentage of compliance is 99.8% for Functionality, followed by
Alignment & Evenness (98.4%). The lowest percentage of compliance is for Joints &
Gaps, with 57.5%.
Figure 4.88: Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings (2018).
Summary
Table 4.1 below displays the lowest defect group relating to compliance for the period
between 2015 and 2018. Most of the elements display the same highest defect group
51.2%
66.7%
94.6%
81.0%
90.6%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
External Wall Floor Apron & Drain Door & Window Roof
Bin Centre
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Bin Centre
57.5%
98.4%
76.5%
99.8%
97.8%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Joints & Gaps
Alignment & Evenness
Material & Damages
Functionality
Accessories Defects
Percentage of Compliance for Defect Group Basic M&E Fittings
57
for these periods such as Finishing for Floor, Internal Wall, Ceiling, Roof and External
Wall. Likewise, Element Door, Window and Internal Fixtures also show the same
defect group, which is Material & Damages. Element Apron & Perimeter Drain and
External Drain which share the same defect group, which is Drain the said period. The
element of Basic M&E Fittings also has the same highest defect group, which is Joints
& Gaps.
Table 4.1: Summary of the Highest Defect Group.
Element Defect Group (Highest)
2015 2016 2017 2018
Floor Finishing Finishing Finishing Jointing
Internal Wall Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
Ceiling Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
Door Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Window Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Internal Fixtures Material & Damages
Material & Damages
Functionality Material & Damages
Roof Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
External Wall Finishing Finishing Finishing Finishing
Apron & Perimeter Drain
Drain Drain Drain Drain
Car Park/Car Porch
Basic M&E Fittings
- Floor Floor
Link-way/ Shelter Floor Floor Floor Floor
External Drain Drain Drain Drain Drain
Roadwork & Car Park on the ground
Road Markings Road Surface Road Surface Kerbs
Footpath & Turfing Footpath 1 Footpath 1 Footpath 1 Footpath 1
Playground Floor Floor Floor Floor
Court Floor 2 Floor 1 Floor 2 Signages
Fencing & Gate Fence 1 Fence 1 Fence 1 Fence 1
Swimming Pool Overflow Drain Pool deck
Overflow Drain Pool deck
Fixtures
Electrical Substation
External Wall External Wall External Wall External Wall
Guard House Roof - - External Wall
Bin Centre External Wall - - External Wall
Basic M&E Fittings Joints & Gaps Joints & Gaps Joints & Gaps Joints & Gaps
58
4.2. Analysis on QLASSIC Scoring
A. Number of QLASSIC Project
The total number of QLASSIC projects between 2015 and 2018 was 887
incorporating Categories A, B, C and D. In 2015, 82 projects had undergone the
QLASSIC assessment: 45 projects in Category A, 11 projects in Category B, 24
projects in Category C and two projects in Category D. In 2016, there were 248
projects assessed by QLASSIC: Category A (136 projects), Category B (47 projects),
Category C (63 projects) and Category D (2 projects.)
In 2017, a sum of 303 projects was undertaken with the majority assessed in
Category A (164 projects), and 76 projects in Category C. Category B contributed
around 62 projects while Category D only had one project. In 2018, the total number
of projects assessed by QLASSIC was around 254 projects where Category A was
represented with 121 projects, Category B (70 projects), Category C (45 projects)
and Category D (18 projects).
Table 4.2: Number of QLASSIC Projects between 2015 and 2018.
Year Category Total
2015
A 45
B 11
C 24
D 2
TOTAL 2015 82
2016
A 136
B 47
C 63
D 2
TOTAL 2016 248
2017
A 164
B 62
C 76
D 1
TOTAL 2016 303
2018
A 121
B 70
C 45
D 18
TOTAL 2018 254
59
Figure 4.89: Number of QLASSIC Projects (2015-2018).
B. QLASSIC Scores in 2015
Figure 4.90 displays the QLASSIC scores for 2015 for Categories A, B, C and D. As
can be seen from observing the figure, the scores between 21 and 30 only
represented one project in Category D. The majority of scores range between 71 and
80 followed by scores between 61 and 70. Two categories (A & C) recorded scores
between 81 and 90, with a small minority of scores between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.90: QLASSIC Scores for all Categories in 2015.
4511 24
2
136
47
63
2
164
62
76
1
121
70
45
180
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
2015 2016 2017 2018
Total QLASSIC Projects
3
9
21
12
1
46
2
5
12
5
1 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
21-30 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
ue
ncy
Score
QLASSIC Scores, 2015
A B C D
60
Category A
Figure 4.91 shows the range of QLASSIC scores in Category A for 2015. Most
projects scored between 71 and 80 (21 projects) followed by 12 projects that scored
between 81 and 90.
Figure 4.91: QLASSIC Scores in Category A for 2015.
Category B
Figure 4.92 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category B for 2015. The majority of
projects scored between 71 and 80 (6 projects) followed by four projects scoring
between 61 and 70, with the least score attributed to only one project, with a score
ranging between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.92: QLASSIC Scores in Category B for 2015.
3
9
21
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category A, 2015
1
4
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
51-60 61-70 71-80
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category B, 2015
61
Category C
Figure 4.93 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category C for 2015. The majority (12
projects) scored between 71 and 80, five projects scoring between 61 and 70, and
between 81 and 90 respectively. The least QLASSIC score is seen, ranging between
51 and 60 represented by two projects.
Figure 4.93: QLASSIC Scores in Category C for 2015.
Category D
Figure 4.94 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category D for 2015. One project is
recorded for each score between 21 and 30 and between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.94: QLASSIC Scores in Category D for 2015.
2
5
12
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category C, 2015
1 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
21-30 51-60
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category D, 2015
62
C. QLASSIC Scores in 2016
Figure 4.95 shows the QLASSIC scores for all categories for 2016. Most of the
projects scored between 71 and 80, followed by a score between 61 and 70. A score
between 81 and 90 was represented by Categories A, B and C with the minority of
projects scoring between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.95: QLASSIC Scores for all Category in 2016
Category A
Figure 4.96 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category A for 2016. Here, 54 projects
are assessed with the QLASSIC scores ranging between 71 and 80, 44 projects
scoring between 61 and 70, 20 projects scoring between 81 and 90, with the minority
scoring between 51 and 60 (11 projects).
11
44
54
27
2
16
26
33
2630
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores, 2016
A B C D
63
Figure 4.96: QLASSIC Scores in Category A for 2016
Category B
Category B in 2016 shows that most (26 projects) of the projects scored between 71
and 80, followed a score ranging between 61 and 70 with 16 projects. The least
number of projects as can be seen in the figure below represented a score between 81
and 90 (3 projects) and a score between 51 and 60 with two projects.
Figure 4.97: QLASSIC Scores in Category B for 2016
Category C
Figure 4.98 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category C for 2016. The scores range
between 71 and 80 recorded the highest number of projects (30 projects), followed
11
44
54
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category A, 2016
2
16
26
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category B, 2016
64
by a score between 61 and 70 with 26 projects. A minority of projects scored
between 81 and 90 (four projects) and three projects scoring between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.98: QLASSIC Scores in Category C for 2016
Category D
Figure 4.99 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category D for 2016. Only two projects
were in Category D with a score ranging between 61 and 70.
Figure 4.99: QLASSIC Score in Category D for 2016.
3
26
30
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category C, 2016
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
61-70
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Score Category D, 2016
65
D. QLASSIC Scores in 2017
Figure 4.100 shows the QLASSIC scores for all categories in 2017. As seen from the
figure, the majority of projects scored between 71 and 80, and between 61 and 70.
This was followed by scores ranging between 81 and 90, with the least score
between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.10: QLASSIC Scores for all Categories in 2017.
Category A
Figure 4.101 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category A for 2017. Most (83) of the
projects scored between 71 and 80, followed by 63 projects scoring between 61 and
70. Fourteen (14) projects scored between 81 and 90 with the least number of
projects (3) scoring between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.101: QLASSIC Scores in Category A for 2017.
3
63
83
14
113
43
53
2737
81
0
20
40
60
80
100
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores, 2017
A B C D
3
63
83
14
0
20
40
60
80
100
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category A, 2017
66
Category B
QLASSIC scores in Category B for 2017, as shown in Figure 4.102, display the
projects involved in QLASSIC assessments scoring between 71 and 80, while 13
projects scored between 61 and 70. Five projects scored between 81 and 90 with the
least number of projects of one scoring between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.102: QLASSIC Scores in Category B for 2017.
Category C
Figure 4.103 shows the QLASSIC scores for Category C in 2017. Most (37) of the
projects scored between 71 and 80 with 27 projects scoring between 61 and 70 and 8
projects scoring between 81 and 90, The minority of projects (3) scored between 51
and 60.
Figure 4.103: QLASSIC Scores in Category C for 2017.
1
13
43
5
0
10
20
30
40
50
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category B, 2017
3
27
37
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category C, 2017
67
Category D
The QLASSIC score in Category D for 2017 shows that for one project, the score
ranged between 71 and 80.
Figure 4.104: QLASSIC Score in Category D for 2017.
E. QLASSIC Scores in 2018
Figure 4.105 shows the QLASSIC scores for all categories in 2018. A score between
71 and 80 shows the highest number of projects, followed by a score between 61 and
70. A score between 81 and 90 shows the third-highest number of projects with the
minority scoring between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.105: QLASSIC Scores for all Categories in 2018
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
71-80
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Score Category D, 2017
25
73
2316
46
84
21 19
11 39 5
0
20
40
60
80
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores, 2018
A B C D
68
Category A
The QLASSIC scores in Category A for 2018 indicate that the highest number of
projects (73) scored between 71 and 80, followed by scoring between 61 and 70 with
25 projects. The least number of projects (23) scored between 81 and 90.
Figure 4.106: QLASSIC Scores for Category A in 2018
Category B
Figure 4.107 shows the QLASSIC scores in Category B for 2018. Forty-six (46)
projects had the highest score for the number of projects ranging between 71 and 80
followed by 16 projects scoring between 61 and 70 with the least number of projects
scoring between 81 and 90 (8 projects).
Figure 4.107: QLASSIC Scores for Category B in 2018
25
73
23
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category A, 2018
16
46
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category B, 2018
69
Category C
Figure 4.108 displays the QLASSIC scores for Category C in 2018. Twenty-one (21)
projects scored between 61 and 70, followed by 19 projects scoring between 71 and
80. Four projects scored between 51 and 60, while the least score was between 81
and 90 represented by one project.
Figure 4.108: QLASSIC Scores for Category C in 2018.
Category D
QLASSIC scores for Category D in 2018 are shown in Figure 4.109. Here, the
majority of projects (9) received a score between 71 and 80, followed by five
projects scoring between 81 and 90. The minority of projects scored between 61 and
70 (3 projects) with one project scoring between 51 and 60.
Figure 4.109: QLASSIC Scores for Category D in 2018.
4
2119
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category C, 2018
1
3
9
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90
Fre
qu
en
cy
Score
QLASSIC Scores Category D, 2018
70
Summary
Table 4.3 displays the mean scores for all categories between 2015 and 2018). For
2015, the total mean score for all categories is 73, with the highest score (81)
represented by Category D followed by Category A with a mean score of 74. For
2016, the total mean score is 72 score with the highest score represented by
Categories A and B of 72.
The scores for 2017 are similarly showing a total mean score of 72, where Category
D recorded the highest score of 77 followed by Category B with a score of 74. For
2018, Categories A and D had the highest mean score of 75, followed by Category B
with a score of 74. The total mean score for 2018 was 74.
The number of projects and scoring for all categories between 2015 and 2018 is
illustrated in Figure 4.110.
Table 4.3: Mean Score for all Categories between 2015 and 2018.
Year Category Mean Score Total Mean Score
2015 A 74 73
B 70
C 73
D 81
2016 A 72 72
B 72
C 71
D 65
2017 A 72 72
B 74
C 72
D 77
2018 A 75 74
B 74
C 69
D 75
71
Fig
ure
4.1
10:
QL
AS
SIC
Sco
res
fo
r all
Cate
go
ries b
etw
een
20
15 a
nd
20
18
72
4.3. The Number of Assessments by State and Category between 2015 and 2018
Figure 4.111 and Table 4.4 below display the trend of QLASSIC assessments by state and
category between the period 2015 and 2018. The majority of projects were from Selangor
and Johor. The least number of assessments resulted from Kelantan having only one
project. Most assessments are represented by Category A followed by Category B. The year
2017 recorded the highest number of assessments represented by Category A followed by
2016, as the second highest.
Figure 4.111: Trend of Assessments by State and Category (2015-2018).
Table 4.4: Number of Assessments by State and Category (2015-2018).
YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018
TOTAL CATEGORY /STATE
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
Sabah (SB) 3 1 9 3 1 1 1 19
Perak (PR) 3 13 1 2 11 2 1 10 2 4 49
Putrajaya (PJ) 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 1 18
Pulau Pinang (PP)
2 1 4 1 5 10 3 6 4 1 37
Kelantan (KN) 1 1
Melaka (ML) 1 1 5 2 9
Terengganu (TG)
1 2 8 3 4 3 21
Kedah (KD) 1 9 2 23 3 18 1 1 58
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
2015 2016 2017 2018
Trend of Assessments by State and Category(2015-2018)
SB PR PJ PP KN ML TG KD PH SR SL JH NS WP
73
YEAR 2015 2016 2017 2018
TOTAL CATEGORY /STATE
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
Pahang (PH) 1 1 1 6 1 9 1 2 1 23
Sarawak (SR) 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 13
Selangor (SL) 24 9 11 1 45 33 19 1 52 24 26 1 39 36 19 8 348
Johor (JH) 8 2 33 4 11 43 10 13 22 11 12 4 173
Negeri Sembilan (NS)
5 1 11 1 3 12 1 4 13 2 1 54
Kuala Lumpur (WP)
2 2 13 8 1 14 14 11 6 3 74
TOTAL 46 12 22 2 137
62 58 2 163
69 70 1 120
70 45 18
74
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion and Recommendation on the Defect Group
The defect group elements in this study were divided into 22 elements along with its defect
group. The elements were divided into three sections, namely Architectural works, External
works, and Basic M&E Fittings. The Architectural works comprised of 10 elements, External
works 1 had four elements, External works 2 had four elements, and External works 3 consisted
of three elements. The Basic M&E fittings consisted of five defect groups.
The findings of this study showed ‘Finishing’ as the main defect group for most of the elements,
which consisted of Floor, Internal Wall, Ceiling, External Wall, and Roof. The defect groups
for Material & Damages included the elements of Door, Window, and Internal Fixtures and the
defect group, Drain consisted of Apron & Perimeter Drain and External Drain elements. The
defect group for External Wall included Electrical Substation and Bin Centre, and the element
of Basic M&E fittings had a defect group represented by Joints & Gaps for all years. The defect
group, Floor was represented by the elements, namely Playground, Court, Link-way/Shelter,
and Car park/Car porch.
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the main recommendation is to
address the issue associated with defect group, Finishing and Floor. Moreover, the material
used to construct floors should be first checked beside the matters associated with the handling
of materials. The other defect group that should be considered include Material & Damages,
Drain, External Wall and Joints & Gaps.
5.2. Conclusion and Recommendation on QLASSIC Scoring Benchmarks
The CITP propose that the improvement of quality standards should be addressed by increasing
QLASSIC assessments within the construction industry. Importantly, the system assesses the
workmanship of contractors and broader quality assurance matters in the construction of
buildings, thus leading to improvements in the quality of both the contractors and overall
construction work. The CITP KPI for the QLASSIC assessment score for Q4 2020 was 70.
75
From the total sum of projects (887) that had undergone QLASSIC assessments for the period
between 2015 and 2018), the total mean QLASSIC score was 73, 72, 72 and 74, respectively.
Table 3 displays the overall mean score, 72.75.
In conclusion, the overall mean QLASSIC score exceeded the CITP KPI, which was 70.
Table 5.1: Overall Mean Score for all Categories (2015-2018).
Year Category Mean Score Total Mean
Score Overall Mean
Score
2015
A 74
73
72.75
B 70
C 73
D 81
2016
A 72
72 B 72
C 71
D 65
2017
A 72
72 B 74
C 72
D 77
2018
A 75
74 B 74
C 69
D 75
Accordingly, the main recommendation of this study is that CIDB should enforce developers
to include the minimum QLASSIC score as part of their contractual requirements for residential
projects. This enforcement will help to enhance the quality of workmanship on building and
construction projects in Malaysia.
76
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: QLASSIC Excellence Awards 2019
PROJECT PROJECT OWNER (S) MAIN
CONTRACTOR PROJECT
ARCHITECT
HIGHEST QLASSIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARD 2019
SAUJANA DUTA PHASE 2L SEREMBAN, NEGERI SEMBILAN
SEREMBAN TWO HOLDING SDN. BHD.
TIMBUNAN BAKTI CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.
DESIGN COLLECTIVE ARCHITECTURE NETWORK SDN. BHD.
HIGH QLASSIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARD 2019 LANDED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ELMINA VALLEY 1 PHASE EV1A, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
AIMA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.
SENIWISMA ARCHITECT ENGINEER SDN. BHD.
ELMINA VALLEY 1 PHASE EV1B, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
SRI MANSANG SDN. BHD.
SENIWISMA ARCHITECT ENGINEER SDN. BHD.
ELMINA VALLEY 2 PHASE EV2A, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
PA BUILDERS SDN. BHD.
HIA ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
ELMINA VALLEY 2 PHASE EV2B, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
PA BUILDERS SDN. BHD.
HIA ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
ELMINA VALLEY 3 PHASE EV3A, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
NISSIN BUILDERS SDN. BHD.
PARADIGM ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
ELMINA VALLEY 3 PHASE EV3B, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
KITACON SDN. BHD.
PARADIGM ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
ELMINA VALLEY 4 PHASE EV4A, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD
AIMA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD
VISAGE ARCHITECT
ELMINA VALLEY 4 PHASE EV4B, ELMINA WEST SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD
JALLCON (M) SDN BHD
VISAGE ARCHITECT
ESTUARI GARDENS PUTERI HABOUR – JOHOR BAHRU, JOHOR
BANDAR NUSAJAYA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.
INTA BINA SDN. BHD.
PARADIGM ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
N’DIRA TOWNHOUSE PUCHONG SOUTH SELANGOR
LUSH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.
AIMA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.
ATELIER ADT ARKITEK (ASIA) SDN. BHD.
77
PROJECT PROJECT OWNER (S) MAIN
CONTRACTOR PROJECT
ARCHITECT
REDUP & SANTAI PHASE 4A&4b BANDAR AINSDALE, SEREMBAN NEGERI SEMBILAN
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
MAKASSAR SDN. BHD.
PARADIGM ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
SAUJANA DUTA PHASE 2L SEREMBAN NEGERI SEMBILAN
SEREMBAN TWO HOLDINGS SDN. BHD.
TIMBUNAN BAKTI CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.
DESIGN COLLECTIVE ARCHITECTURE NETWORK SDN. BHD.
SEJATI RESIDENCES PHASE 2A, CYBERJAYA SELANGOR
PARAMOUNT PROPERTY (CJAYA) SDN.
INTA BINA SDN. BHD.
SA ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
TIANA, PHASE G6 ELMINA EAST, SHAH ALAM SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD.
AIMA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.
ALMAZ ARCHITECT SDN. BHD.
HIGH QLASSIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARD 2019 HIGH RISE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ANGGUN RESIDENCES WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR
UDA HOLDING BERHAD
CREST BUILDER SDN. BHD.
RSP ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
KIARA COURT, PHASE NU5C NILAI IMPIAN NEGERI SEMBILAN
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD
AIMA CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.
AZMAN ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANCY
PAVILION BANDAR PUTERI PUCHONG, PUCHONG SELANGOR
IOI PROPERTIES GROUP BERHAD
SRI BINARAYA SDN. BHD.
ADJ ARCHITECTURE SDN. BHD
PUTRA RESIDENCE PHASE 5Q, PUTRA HEIGHTS PETALING JAYA, SELANGOR
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD
T.J. CIVIL & STRUCTURAL CONTRACTOR SDN. BHD.
S&A ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
THE LOFT @ SOUTHBAY CITY BATU MAUNG, PULAU PINANG
VIENNA VIEW DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD
BUILTECH PROJECT MANAGEMENT SDN. BHD.
ARKITEK H SUN
HIGH QLASSIC ACHIEVEMENT AWARD 2019 NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PONDEROSA AVENUE JOHOR BAHRU, JOHOR
RAWHIDE SDN. BHD TSK CONSTRUCTION SDN. BHD.
SH MOK ARCHITECT
QLASSIC SPECIAL APPRECIATION GOVERNMENT PROJECTS 2019
10 RESIDENSI SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR (PKNS)
IBRAHIM MIAN SDN. BHD.
BAHAGIAN ARKITEK PKNS
HIJAUAN ENKLAF SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR
PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR (PKNS)
IBRAHIM MIAN SDN. BHD.
BDA ARCHITECTS SDN. BHD.
KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI (KDN)
SN SHAMSUL RIZAL ARCHITECT
78
PROJECT PROJECT OWNER (S) MAIN
CONTRACTOR PROJECT
ARCHITECT
IBU PEJABAT JABATAN PENJARA MALAYSIA KAJANG, SELANGOR
JABATAN PENJARA MALAYSIA PEMBINAAN
SUJAMAN SDN. BHD.
JABATAN KERJA RAYA MALAYSIA (JKR)
PERUMAHAN PENJAWAT AWAM MALAYSIA (PPAM) METROPOLITAN KEPONG (MRR2) KUALA LUMPUR
JL99 HOLDINGS SDN. BHD. BINASTRA
CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN. BHD.
PING NG ARCHITECT PERUMAHAN
PENJAWAT AWAM MALAYSIA (PPAM)
SKYAWANI RESIDENCE SENTUL, KUALA LUMPUR
SKYWORLD DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. PEMBINAAN TUJU
SETIA SDN. BHD. ARKITEK S.H.LIM
KEMENTERIAN WILAYAN PERSEKUTUTAN
RUMAH MAMPU MILIK JOHOR (RMMJ) TAMAN PULAI HIJAUAN PULAI, JOHOR
GRANDEUR PARK SDN. BHD.
ATLANTIS C&E SDN. BHD.
RDC ARKITEK SDN. BHD. SETIAUSAHA
KERJAAN NEGERI JOHOR (SUKJ)
79